User talk:Funky Monkey/archive1

Image:Music blonde on blonde.jpg

This image is listed as fair use. I'm afraid that policy prevents the use of fair use images on userpages. Could you remove it please?Geni 18:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson article

In your edit summary you said, "(Revert. Street walker AfD's last seven days, and so far the consensus is to delete or merge, more than keep.)" I know all that, I reverted edits made by someone else who merged the personal life article with the main article before a concensus was reached. Street walker 06:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Blender Magazine

Why are you blanking articles? If you disagree with an article, you should request an article for deletion at WP:AFD first. Funky Monkey 06:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually a redirection doesn't destroy the history, so technically it doesn't require you to go to AfD first (precisely because they can be easily reverted if someone has a problem with it). There were four "lists" branching off the Blender (magazine) article, all simply recreations of Blender's content with some additional original research added on. When the Blender article itself is still a minor stub, I couldn't see having four other targets for vandalism that cannot, by definition, ever be expanded. I included links to the Blender website versions of those lists when I replaced the page links, but two of them I couldn't find (their search engine is pretty awful). That's why I was changing those 'articles' into redirects... hope that helps. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

USA Today

Nice little mention in USA Today. Congrats! --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't gimme that

How many times I'm I going to tell you to check the references at the bottom! --161.74.11.24 15:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why

Why did you put the note back on my talk page?

Stupid now?

Your going to act stupid now. Put messages on my talk page without giving me any explanation, when I ask you for one?

---

hay you reported this computer and i whould like to say the school that im at shares ip adresses so it wasn't me...

excessive vandalism

i have already been informed of vandalism policies, and I don't need to be reminded too much. and bob dylan is overrated. do not bother me again.

Records and achievements by Michael Jackson

There is the cite tag on the top of the page. I don't think is necessary to put fact tag all over the page. It makes the page look messy. A single link will probably take care of this. what do you think? --161.74.11.24 11:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Siddhartha21

Siddhartha21 is still edit warring over the "Wacko Jacko" issue, despite the fact that the voting tally at present stands at 10 keep and 4 remove. I've about had enough of him. Also, I feel very suspicious of all the redlinked names and IPs commenting on the Jackson talk page. Have you noticed this? Is it normal for that particular page? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not sure about voting on specific articles, but I know that voting for things like RfA they have a rule: "Who may not vote: Editors who are not logged in ("anons"), or do not have an account. Votes of very new editors may be discounted if there is suspicion of fraud such as sockpuppetry." And I think Articles for deletion may have a similar type of rule. But I'm honestly not sure about voting on articles. I tend to think that all the IPs should be discounted...I don't think it would make much difference to the end result since IPs seem to be voting for and against. Siddhartha just annoys me because he keeps warring while everyone else is trying to reach an agreement and looking at his talk page, he won't listen to reason. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Grr...

I must have edit conflicted with you more than 10 times now. ;-) Moe ε 23:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe now I can get some edits now. :-) Seriously, good fast-paced editor you are ;-D Moe ε 23:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for pointing those edits out--they're priceless! Someone has a very vivid imagination, I think. I can't believe I've just seen someone theorise that Lisa Marie Presley doesn't know the difference between sex and masturbation (despite having 2 children of her own!) and then go on to tie Michael Jackson's genes in with the Da Vinci Code! LMAO. Thankyou! :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL I know, that part was hilarious! Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

adding pics

GRRR how do you do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by True bacon22 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson nick names

I was not suggesting to remove the nicks, but clarifying their origin as the OP suggested might be an idea. I was also curious as to why they did not perform the edit themselves, but rather request someone else did - it does not seem to me to be a controversial change. I note one correspondent claims never to have heard MJJ referred to as the king of pop - odd since MJJ uses this name himself, or perhaps did.

kylet 18:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Funky Monkey/archive1! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Wisden17 17:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding nonsense to wikipedia and I won't have to revert your edits

Stop adding nonsense to wikipedia and I won't have to revert your edits. Who are you to determine what is and isn't nonsense on wikipedia? Do you own wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.116.117 (talk • contribs) .

MJ

Just saw the warning that you gave to User:Ken Y for his edits to the M.J article. It probably was not vandalism. Please make sure that edits are really unscrupulous before classing users as "vandals" and adding {{test}} warnings. Thanx. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Judging by his edits I stand by my actions -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  17:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain this on your user page.

THIS CONVERSATION IS PRESERVED HERE IN FULL DUE TO User:Journalist BLANKING VALID CRITISISM FROM HIS TALK PAGE WHICH IS, IN MY OPINION, REPROACHFUL, ESPECIALLY FOR AN ADMINISTRATOR

"Journalist is a featured user, which means that he has been identified as one of the best among the Wikipedia community."

You are an administrator, nothing more, nothing less. You are NOT a featured user, neither have you been identified as one of the best among the Wikipedia community. If you have please could you show me proof. Your RFA doesn't count as that just makes you THE SAME as every other admin, NOT "one of the best" Cheers -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  18:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The sign is there basically as a joke. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no such thing as a "featured user". A bunch of editors, eg User:Acetic Acid, User:Shreshth91 and I though that it might simply look cool.

However, on some level, Administartors can be considered featured users, just as how there are featured articles. Both basically go through the same processes (review, scrutiny etc) and came out victorios; they now represent the face of Wikipedia. Also, very few articles and editors are promoted to this rank.

And lastly, its my user page; I don't think I need to give you proof for anything :P Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is your user page, and you don't have to prove anything. I do however think that the notice could be VERY misleading, especially to new users and I really don't think that this sort of thing should be promoted by admins, whether as a joke or not! Also, as an admin, I shouldn't have to remind you that removing legitimate content from your talk page could be considered vandalism. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  21:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Admins, in my opinion, are featured users. They represent only a small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of editors here, they are held in high regard, they have certain priveleged responsibilities, and their actions are used as models for other editors. How can the sign be misleading to others when it basically tells what an Admin is (isn't the word "featured user" linked to WP:Administrators?)? Frankly, if you view my sign as misleading, that is too bad for you, isnt it?

Also, don't lecture me about vandalism. I know the policies (hence my promotion). According to Wikipedia:Vandalism, "[vandalism] does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion..." Thank you. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You've obviously not read WP:CIVIL recently though. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  17:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Practising what you preach!!!

You added this on a talk page, and are guilty of dong the same yourself. Double standards, shameful in an admin.

I should point out that some users consider it disrespectful when a user removes comments from his or her talk page. Although you are using it, you really cannot claim it and tell others what to post and what not to post. For certain, you cannot remove warnings from you pages, nor can you delete discussions about the policies and concerns over your behavior.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  13:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Funky Monkey, you have been on my back for a while now. Really what's your problem?

I said that some users consider it disrespectful. I did not say that all users do, nor did I say that it was vandalism (as you incorrectly seem to imply). Also, I said that you definately cannot remove warnings, nor discussions of the policies where they apply to your (mis)behaviour. However, when people want to get rid of trivial naggings (such as this (or the other 5 times)), they can archive their talkpage, or remove things at their discretion. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ...monkey

I thought I had lost those userboxes, but now I can continue with expressing my crazy liberal philosophies. Yay PETA! Eyeball kid 04:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop vandalising

Please stop vandalising Records and achievements by Michael Jackson [1] [2]. One more time, and I will report you to an admin! --OnesixOne 15:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk entry removal

Why did you remove my entry to the Michael Jackson talk page? [3]. --161.74.11.24 09:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)